Retrospective licence does not excuse prior unauthorised manufacture; denial of personal hearing in revision was not a natural justice breach.

Refusal of a personal hearing in revision did not breach natural justice where the revisional authority decided the matter on merits, the dispute raised no complex or technical issue, and the petitioner had already filed written submissions. Retrospective grant of a licence did not entitle the petitioner to duty relief for goods manufactured and cleared without a licence and without payment of duty, because the earlier unauthorised activity remained material and was not validated by the later licence. The challenge therefore failed, and the duty demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was denied natural justice by not being granted a personal hearing in revision; (ii) Whether the grant of a licence with retrospective effect entitled the petitioner to relief in duty under the relevant notification.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was denied natural justice by not being granted a personal hearing in revision.

Analysis: The revision was considered by the Central Government on merits. The dispute did not involve complex or technical questions requiring an oral hearing, and the petitioner had already made written submissions. In these circumstances, absence of a personal hearing did not amount to breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not denied natural justice on account of non-grant of a personal hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of a licence with retrospective effect entitled the petitioner to relief in duty under the relevant notification.

Analysis: The petitioner had manufactured and cleared the goods without a licence and without payment of duty. Retrospective grant of a licence did not validate the earlier unauthorised manufacture so as to create an entitlement to duty relief under the notification. The contravention of the licensing and regulatory provisions remained material.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to duty relief on the basis of the retrospective licence.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge failed because the revisional order disclosed no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record, and the duty demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional authority decides the matter on merits on written submissions in a case not requiring oral clarification, refusal of personal hearing does not violate natural justice; a retrospective licence does not by itself confer exemption from duty for goods manufactured and cleared unauthorisedly before the licence was granted.

---